Topic: Gambling can be profitable in the long run! It is possible! - page 53. (Read 37333 times)
i highly doubt it the casinos are made to have the house edge which would lead people into loosing all their money
It is possible that your winning streak will continue infinitely but the chances are very, very, very slim.
thats some interesting readings i hope you are right as i am playing gambling games a lot and it would be cool to make a casino go bancrupt
So there is a difference between interaction source, and money source.
That I agree with, except in the situation of a new casino, where they will have to put together a house bankroll to manage the variance of wins and losses until the player pool grows to a suitable size.
I`m not sure how physical casinos are born, they can raise money by stock market, fundraiser, or bank loan to have the initial capital for house->player games.
However in bitcoin it's easier, many bitcoin casinos like Satoshidice.com, offer investments in their bankroll, so investors can invest directly in them, and gain a % share from the house profit.
So there is a difference between interaction source, and money source.
That I agree with, except in the situation of a new casino, where they will have to put together a house bankroll to manage the variance of wins and losses until the player pool grows to a suitable size.
Nope, that's not how roulette works. Every player at the table is betting against the house. For example, if every player bets on red and wins, the house pays.
Poker is where the players are playing against each other and the house takes a "rake" as a fee for hosting the game and there is no house edge.
I understand that, but the money comes from other gamblers. So the house only acts as a mediator, always.
While the money is being changed from 1 gambler to the other. Now in roulette you interact with the house not the player, but that doesnt mean that the money doesnt come from the other player.
So there is a difference between interaction source, and money source.
I may have misunderstood you, but that's not how roulette works, you don't win the money from the other players but from the house.
You are absolutely right, the max bet on the roulette table helps prevent the martingale system from working and also reduce the variance on house profits. The free drinks keep the player at the table longer etc etc
No you win it from the other gamblers ,where the house acts as the medium of exchange. The house keeps it's comission, the house edge, and the rest of it is distributed through other gamblers.
Nope, that's not how roulette works. Every player at the table is betting against the house. For example, if every player bets on red and wins, the house pays.
Poker is where the players are playing against each other and the house takes a "rake" as a fee for hosting the game and there is no house edge.
I may have misunderstood you, but that's not how roulette works, you don't win the money from the other players but from the house.
You are absolutely right, the max bet on the roulette table helps prevent the martingale system from working and also reduce the variance on house profits. The free drinks keep the player at the table longer etc etc
No you win it from the other gamblers ,where the house acts as the medium of exchange. The house keeps it's comission, the house edge, and the rest of it is distributed through other gamblers.
Gambling firms do a lot of things to try and remove the player edge, be it as simple as table limits/max bets or cross selling you more profitable games all the way up to refusing any further business for consistent winners. So while mathematically I think you are correct, in reality it can be very difficult to be in the long tail of profitable winners due to random chance.
Half true. The casinos usually put those measures in place to protect the house profit, but they can still win eachother's money.
Like in a roulette for example you have maximum bet size so that a guy with 1 billion dollar cannot martingale itself to infinity and bankrupt the casino.
However if he bets flat, he can still win the other people's money.
I may have misunderstood you, but that's not how roulette works, you don't win the money from the other players but from the house.
You are absolutely right, the max bet on the roulette table helps prevent the martingale system from working and also reduce the variance on house profits. The free drinks keep the player at the table longer etc etc
Gambling firms do a lot of things to try and remove the player edge, be it as simple as table limits/max bets or cross selling you more profitable games all the way up to refusing any further business for consistent winners. So while mathematically I think you are correct, in reality it can be very difficult to be in the long tail of profitable winners due to random chance.
Half true. The casinos usually put those measures in place to protect the house profit, but they can still win eachother's money.
Like in a roulette for example you have maximum bet size so that a guy with 1 billion dollar cannot martingale itself to infinity and bankrupt the casino.
However if he bets flat, he can still win the other people's money.
You also need to factor in the type of game being played. So for example Poker and Sports betting are the gambling games with the best chance of being profitable in the long run, with casino games having the lowest chance of long run profitability.
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
All games could be profitable, even if you have a house edge of 99%.
It is only a matter of right probability distribution.
Please read up on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution
Gambling firms do a lot of things to try and remove the player edge, be it as simple as table limits/max bets or cross selling you more profitable games all the way up to refusing any further business for consistent winners. So while mathematically I think you are correct, in reality it can be very difficult to be in the long tail of profitable winners due to random chance.
Updated post #1, I try to explain it better because people dont understand what a probabiltiy distibution is:
This is not necessarly accurate representation, but it's an illustration how a negative expectancy game's probability distribution looks like.
Gamblers winning is a tail event with low probability, nontheless it's mathematically possible to happen:
You just need to calculate that area and you got the probability of your scenario set to happen:
You can calculate that area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-test
This is not necessarly accurate representation, but it's an illustration how a negative expectancy game's probability distribution looks like.
Gamblers winning is a tail event with low probability, nontheless it's mathematically possible to happen:
You just need to calculate that area and you got the probability of your scenario set to happen:
You can calculate that area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-test
AFAIK you can win gamble if you know when to stop otherwise house edge will "killing" you.
I learn math on elementary school that lossing chance is greater than winning one
I learn math on elementary school that lossing chance is greater than winning one
What is the probability of the event "1 out of infinite" happening ?Let's prove this by using some basic probability formulas
It is not 1 event, it is infinite events.
You can variate my example in post #1 infinite times.
But i`m sure it can be quantified if you calculate the tail probability of it. Gambling distribution is gaussian, so you just need to measure the probability of a tail event happening and you got it.
But again there are infinite variations of that scenario and each one is ranked on different probability levels. So you need to calculate that area actually.
So I would illustrate it like this:
The orange area is my example, it's a tail event, and there are infinite variations of it, in that space.
However nontheless it's a measurable subset of the probability function that can be calculated if you have spare time.
All those figures are based on assumptions and doesn't have to be possibly true.In mathematically terms your assumption is not a corollary but a theorem.I agree that is proved with various predictions but those situations won't actually happen in real life.
It is based on mathematical facts. How likely it is?
I dont know, but it can be calculated if you have spare time for it. However it is possible.
Moreover, my example was only 1 out of infinite variations how that scenario could play out.
Given how random walks work, eventually all paths will be crossed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
Lets assume our sample space is not infinite and say its 10,000.
Lets assume "A" is the event of 1 person getting a "win in the long run" from the available sample space.
The probability is as follows :
P(A)=n(A)/n(SampleSpace)
=0.0001
So the chances of satisfying this event is point zero zero zero which is next to impossible but hey doesn't mean its totally not impossible as considering total probability being 1.
You also need to factor in the type of game being played. So for example Poker and Sports betting are the gambling games with the best chance of being profitable in the long run, with casino games having the lowest chance of long run profitability.
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
All games could be profitable, even if you have a house edge of 99%.
It is only a matter of right probability distribution.
Please read up on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution
You also need to factor in the type of game being played. So for example Poker and Sports betting are the gambling games with the best chance of being profitable in the long run, with casino games having the lowest chance of long run profitability.
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
But it still requires you playing perfectly (poker) or taking advantage of mis-pricing (sports betting).
All those figures are based on assumptions and doesn't have to be possibly true.In mathematically terms your assumption is not a corollary but a theorem.I agree that is proved with various predictions but those situations won't actually happen in real life.
It is based on mathematical facts. How likely it is?
I dont know, but it can be calculated if you have spare time for it. However it is possible.
Moreover, my example was only 1 out of infinite variations how that scenario could play out.
Given how random walks work, eventually all paths will be crossed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
All those figures are based on assumptions and doesn't have to be possibly true.In mathematically terms your assumption is not a corollary but a theorem.I agree that is proved with various predictions but those situations won't actually happen in real life.
Your review may be true that there is also, all that could happen if our luck is very strong and a lot of funds.
Most players lose large funding shortfall if according to my experience playing gambling.
Most players lose large funding shortfall if according to my experience playing gambling.
Yes a larger fund may increase your chance of survival but it also increases the risk, as you can lose it too.
But it all depends on luck, you can win the jackpot on your firs bet: a lottery ticket of 5€ can bring you 500,000,000€. So its not always the case of large funds needed.
Jump to: